Thanks for the reply @Meckell.
@Meckell, you say that the reason Price Assurance doesn't apply to 'partial matches' is because Pros opt into those Jobs after seeing the details.
My question to you is, why is 'opting in' and 'seeing the job details' even a reason for exclusion from Price Assurance?
We can hopefully agree that when a Pro decides to pay for a 'partial match' Lead they do so with the expectation that they have a real shot of winning the Job.
We can also hopefully agree that when a Lead doesn't read the Pro's first message within 48 hours then by Thumbtack's measure the Pro had no real shot of winning the Job.
Refusing to refund a Pro for a Lead when Thumbtack subsequently determine the Pro had no real shot of winning that Job seems quite wrong.
I hope that Thumbtack rethink their Price Assurance policy to make it fairer to all Pros. Thumbtack need to do a far better job of protecting Pros from Leads they have no real shot of winning.
@Lar @ChefOfAllSeason In Meckell's last response she gave the reasoning for partial matches not being included for unread refunds.
I'll remind you to please see our new updated Community Code of Conduct. Section #2 in particular. "We do our best to answer questions quickly and with as much detail as possible. If your question has been addressed, please accept the answer in good faith and move on."
At this point, we've addressed your question to our fullest extent and knowledge and won't be discussing it further.
@Kameron, I did see @Meckell's reply and her answer, for which I thanked her.
I made a post in reply to @Meckell in which I asked her a direct question related to her answer. My question was...
"...why is 'opting in' and 'seeing the job details' even a reason for exclusion from Price Assurance?"
In that same post I described at length my reason for asking that follow up question.
Thank you @Kameron for taking the time to remind me of the Thumbtack forum code of conduct.
As quoted by yourself @Kameron, "If your question has been addressed, please accept the answer in good faith and move on."
My question, "...why is 'opting in' and 'seeing the job details' even a reason for exclusion from Price Assurance?", has not as yet been addressed or answered. When it has then rest assured I will accept the answer in good faith and move on.
I hope that it's ok for me to chime in here as I have an example to share.
The other day, a "customer" asked for my availability. It wasn't an "exact match", as customer checked off a fog machine in their preferences. I don't offer fog or bubble machines for various reasons, one being that accidents happen.
Lead cost was $42, and after reading Price Assurance again, and chatting with a rep via email, I found this lead not to be "exact", and was told by rep that it wouldn't be guaranteed via Price Assurance policy. So I declined it because if customer ghosted me, I wouldn't be refunded this very high lead cost.
DJ Stevie 11-7-2019
@jcp I see many leads and jobortunities (IDK what else to call them) that are priced as high as $70. It does not sicken me, per se; just makes me cautious. They may turn out to be a viable lead, or not. I never accept them as the ghost rate is still high. My cap is @$25 and accepting even that is largely based on how that price is determined. I have a firm policy of not paying more than 5% of any event's potential revenue. As Mike Brady, L.A. Architect says: Caveat Emptor.